Overrated and Underscary (is that a word?)

Rating: 4/10 (5 July 2007)

Started off pretty good. Interesting, eerie, lots of potential. But by half way through, I knew disappointment was in the air. The "infected" are barely involved, just showing up occasionally to keep our main characters moving on to the next place. And while the ads boast "scary as hell," I'd have to say it's anything but. Not one moment in this film was truly scary. As for the cast, they did okay. It's always good to see Brendan Gleeson in another role, and Christopher Eccleston, while his character was a bit lacking, did good with what he had to work with as well. The other newcomers weren't bad, but it won't be a breakthrough role for any of them. This seems to be the Blair Witch of this year. People want a good scary movie, and word-of-mouth is pushing this one, but it's mind-boggling to figure out who it is that thinks this is good. Was it a horrible movie? No. But it's nothing I'll ever care to see again. I'll take my clichéd American horror movies over this any day, thank you.
As for the "alternate ending"... What a joke. I mean, actually the alternate one (while not as upbeat, so mainstream America will hate it), is better, because the ending they used takes a giant leap and makes no sense at all. But this kind of gimmick is best left to DVD extras.